Late Joining of Service Permitted; Seniority to be Reckoned From Actual Date of Reporting

The Petitioner was offered an appointment as Constable/GD in the CISF on compassionate grounds following the demise of his father

He was directed to report for training on 21.10.2023, and subsequently by 17.11.2023 via a call-up notice, but failed to join

His request for an extension was rejected on 16.02.2024

In the first round of litigation [W.P.(C) 15171/2024], the High Court on 05.11.2024 directed the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner's case as a representation and pass a speaking order, specifically mandating that the representation should not be rejected solely because the six-month validity of the appointment letter had lapsed

The Respondents issued a fresh rejection on 11.01.2025, stating that the Petitioner failed to join within the permissible time and displayed a "casual attitude"

1. Whether the rejection order dated 11.01.2025 was sustainable in light of the specific directions issued by the Court on 05.11.2024

2. Whether the Petitioner could be permitted to join a subsequent batch of training despite the initial lapse of the offer of appointment

The Court applied the principle of administrative compliance with judicial directions, holding that authorities cannot rely on grounds previously restricted or discouraged by a court order

The court also balanced the right to compassionate appointment with the administrative necessity of seniority management, ensuring that delayed entry does not unfairly disadvantage the existing cadre

The Court observed that in the previous litigation, it had explicitly restrained the Respondents from rejecting the Petitioner’s claim on the technical ground that the six-month period for joining had expired

Upon reviewing the impugned order dated 11.01.2025, the Court found that the Respondents had essentially reiterated the same ground—non-joining within the permissible time limit—which had already been addressed and set aside in principle by the Court’s earlier order

The Court determined that since no new or cogent reasons were provided other than the timeline lapse, the impugned order was legally untenable

To balance the equities, the Court decided that while the Petitioner should be allowed to join, his delay must not result in a "depression of seniority" for others; hence, his seniority would be prospective

It directed the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to join the force pursuant to the offer of appointment dated 27.09.2023

The Court held that the Petitioner’s seniority shall be determined based on his actual date of joining and shall not relate back to the original batch

The Court further clarified that this order was passed in the specific facts of the case and is not to be treated as a legal precedent